Wednesday, July 4, 2018

When it emerged last night that the SNP were about to hold an opposition day debate in the Commons on the Claim of Right, I speculated on the pickle the unionist parties might get into depending on how they decided to vote. I expected the Tories to vote against the motion, in which case they would have to explain why they were opposed to the Scottish people's right to self-determination, and I thought Labour and the Liberal Democrats might abstain, in which case they would have to explain why they were refusing to support the founding principle of their own Scottish Constitutional Convention. In the end, all three parties declined to walk into that trap. They all backed the motion, which meant that it passed by acclamation - essentially a unanimous vote without a single MP registering an objection (not even the notorious 'Mr Upskirt').

But of course there are also consequences that flow from backing the Claim of Right. If, when Nicola Sturgeon renews her request for a Section 30 order, the answer continues to be "no", it will be reasonable to ask what the Tories actually meant when they voted in favour of "the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs". As a veteran of interminable back-and-forths about Devo Max with Tory supporters on Stormfront Lite, I'm well aware of the argument that the sovereignty of the Scottish people cannot be absolute when the objective is an enhanced form of self-government within the United Kingdom, because any change in the UK's internal constitutional arrangements affects the whole of the UK and can only be decided by mutual consent, not unilaterally. But that excuse falls apart if you're still claiming that the sovereignty of the people is not absolute even when the decision is about whether to leave the UK altogether. The choice on independence really is nobody's business but Scotland's, and the sovereignty of the Scottish people means nothing if it doesn't mean the right to say "Now Is Not The Time is an interesting opinion, but we disagree with it, and the decision is ours, not yours". It means exactly the same right to decide whether to leave at a time and manner of our own choosing that the British people exercised in relation to the EU.

Tories: We accept that the Scottish people have the sovereign right to decide their own constitutional future.
Scottish people: We have decided that -
Tories: Not now.

Fundraiser: If you find Scot Goes Pop's polling coverage useful and would like to help it continue, donations can be made via the 2017 fundraiser page. The initial £7000 target was reached last summer, but one year on that money has all been used up. I know there are always lots of very worthy pro-independence causes looking for support, so I've held off for as long as I possibly could before actively seeking donations again.

Hi Morag, I hope you won't object if I use a reply to your comment at the top of this thread just in case...oooh, I don't know, TWO unionist trolls are about to come along and ask a tired old question about Shetland that has been answered a billion times before (and yet these people keep popping up and asking it again as if it's some sort of killer question that's never even been thought of before).

The answer of course is yes: Shetland has the same absolute right to self-determination that Scotland does. We do not claim any special right for Scotland that does not apply to others. The only difference between Scotland and Cumbria (just in case, you know, one of the trolls is daft enough to go on to mention Cumbria in this thread) is that Scotland is very likely to use its right to self-determination and Cumbria is not.

It's also worth noting, of course, that even if it was true that self-determination was some kind of special privilege that is 'granted' to some but not to others, the trolls' beloved House of Commons has just voted that Scotland should have it.

I would normally consider deleting this sort of off-topic trolling, but in this case it would result in the deletion of a number of sensible replies.

wwhy would Orkney and Shetland have the right of deciusion? they are a county not a country and I doubt they would want to especially when they realise all the oil would belong to Scotland as it is Scottish waters

As a democrat I say, in theory, the Northern Isles have the right to self determination, but only after the whole of Scotland which entered into the Treaty of Union with England withdraws from that union. If there is then a clear political will for either or both of the northern archipelagos to go their own way, so be it.

However, if either island group decides to stick with the rUK they need to consider matters like transport links, health service provision, policing, education, etc. as these will all have to bypass Scotland and connect directly with rUK. A logistical nightmare.

I have seen this same question asked in various newspapers and heard it spoken on Question Time,and it has been answered countless times yes they have the right its their right I think I was 16 when I first heard it asked,and at 66 now clowns that ask it are boring to the point needing to be ignored for their stupidity but if they don't know they are stupid how will they ever get the help they need?

So, in the face of your UK parliament unanimously acknowledging the sovereignty of the 'Scottish people' to determine the government that best suits them, your natural fall back position is to raise the specter of partition (that good old fashioned colonial policy of British fair play and democracy) .

You, of course, bring this up as a hypothetical in the case of Scotland deciding (as a country) to democratically leave your United Kingdom.

I heard nothing from you demanding Partition for every City and County within the UK that voted to remain within the EU. Most English Cities voted to remain after all...

But of course NO one punted this partition rubbish at that time because... well its just too embarrassing (even for UKIP). Yet, here you are, Mr 'Reasonable Unionist' facing a possible democratic will of the Scottish population disagreeing with Union and your first out the blocks with Scottish partition and 'what about the Northern Isles.. etc?'

As I say, it's really pathetic. I naturally supposed your name, Union2.0, to be a play on Empire2.0. but now I am coming to the sad conclusion that it was not a play on it but a euphemism for it!

The closer we get to a democratic resolution to this historically undemocratic empire based union of yours, the more openly you seem to revert to colonial type.

Hint Union2.0, you can't be both a 'reasonable unionist' AND a supporter of partition and colonialism (no matter how rose tinted and British it feels to you).

Would you sign the Claim of Right? Are you a Scottish Democrat? It is that simple...

It's funny when unionist enabeler talk about keeping certain parts of Scottish soil within London control because on the run up to 2014 I worked in Cumbria and Northumberland and found many that would like to see the border extended south. Now I'm not saying there would be a majority for that but if there was would London agree to hand English territory over, somehow I don't think so. There was a defined border pre 1707 and all territory as was with the obvious execution of R.O.I will be restored as pre 1707 levels. I admit partition seems to be a favourite argument that's hot air from blow hards

Union2 What you're suggesting is partition. Historically disastrous in Palestine, Cyprus and Ireland.British nationalism needs to move on and look up the meaning of democracy. Scotland is a historic nation. The UK has always been a scheme to garner the nations of Wales, Ireland and Scotland for a Greater England. It's a ploy that is unravelling. Respect seems to be the hardest word.

I’m just asking at what stage/level is absolute self-determination (ie no agreement with the state) allowed and not allowed? Is England allowed it? Is Cornwall? Is London? Is the Isle of Man? Shetland? Cumbria?

It's a fair question, even if it is a bit tiresome how frequently Unionists bring up the Northern Isles, which have never shown much desire to secede from Scotland. However, if they did wish to do so, I can't see why it shouldn't be allowed. Presumably you disagree for some reason, Union 2.0?

Well if you take it to it’s logical conclusion we could just make every street or, take it further still, every household independent and then you’d have even more self-determination.

Too much fragmentation is a bad thing in my opinion. More devolution yes but let the UK state control the macro super national things to keep us safe & secure (defence, foreign affairs, pensions, basic welfare).

There is the point of my previous comment taking something to the ridiculous.As ever Britnats come along with the ridiculous,yes they are allowed to be independent and the sooner the better you too can be independent if you want.

Well if you take it to it’s logical conclusion we could just make every street or, take it further still, every household independent and then you’d have even more self-determination.

I'd've thought it obvious that there is a minimum size for a viable state. What exactly that is is debatable, but you still haven't explained why you think Scotland, and therefore over 100 independent countries, fall below it.

Because it’s not that simple, for any part of a state to secede from that state you need agreement by that state and/or the international community. See Catalonia. The same applies to England or Kosovo or Brittany ot Bavaria.

You can’t have pure self determination for every part of every land, big or small, or there would be chaos with 1,000 sovereign states in the world! Where would it end?

Self determination is great but there needs to be some limits, surely? What parts of Scotland would you give, and not give self determination to?

Union2.0 a lifelong advocate of World Government. From London. The thing that was really wrong with the British Empire was that it only ever ruled 30% of the globe and not the full 100%. All this fragmentation among the colonies has been most unwise...

Empire 2.0 VS Self determination. Better start building your gunboats Union2.0 because that's the only way you managed it last time.

By the way Union2.0, Self determination is not 'given' it is exercised.

Those who democratically want to exercise that right should be able to exercise it. To deny it being exercised, the colonial body must, in the end, be willing to use force. Britain has been shown time and time again to be willing to use military force to deny democratic self determination. Are you personally, as a Unionist, still willing to use that force? I don't think Britain is, but historic precedent is still worrying when coupled with the kind of 'reasonable unionist' rubbish you are spouting these days.

If James tells me I’m not welcome I’ll leave this forum. In the meantime I enjoy it here because of the intelligent debate (except for one user and we k ow who that is!).

On military force, if Catalonia had started to put up their own state apparatus the Spanish govt would have shut it down. That’s consistent with protecting your territory. On that occasion there was no agreement between the two parties for a legal referendum. That doesn’t make Catalonia a colony of Spain.

If enough of us want it the UK govt will be in a very unsustainable position but it’s not fair to dismiss the significant population of Scotland that is unionist (or semi-nationalist but likes to be part of the UK in some form).

I’m just urging caution. By the way the UN should be strengthened too in my opinion but that seems decades off with all the problems in the world.

Union2.0You have proposed and are proposing denying the population of Scotland the right to hold a referendum on leaving the Union.

You are claiming Scotland's decision on Independence must be contingent on rUK agreeing to that decision .This is not something even Margaret Thatcher believed was ever the UK constitutional case!

You have raised the horrible historic mistake of partition as a possibility in your imagined dissolution process of the Union, even though you have zero evidence it being an issue.

You raise all these and other 'issues' in the face of the simple fact that democratically you can now see defeat as a possibility. Rather than face defeat and fight it democratically however, you would rather suggest doing what Britain has always done. Muddy the waters and always keep the territory as long as possible come what may, whatever the natives believe.

This is NOT acceptable behaviour, no matter how superficially 'reasonably' posited.

You don't get to be prissy and claim getting called out on basic non democratic and colonial attitudes as somehow rude or 'unreasonable' behaviour on scotgoespop. No one has asked you to leave. You have been asked to justify your attitudes. For what they are, not debating points.

It's very simple Union2.0.

Actually live by your long espoused 'British' democratic principles and lose with some honour. The Independence movement has had to learn how to live by those democratic principles for hundreds of years. It's now time to see if the Scottish Unionists have a similar democratic sand to keep a dream of Union alive (democratically)?

Or, will it be the same old non democratic route Britain has followed over the centuries on every occasion that democratic reality contradicted the requirements of empire?

Because it’s not that simple, for any part of a state to secede from that state you need agreement by that state and/or the international community. See Catalonia. The same applies to England or Kosovo or Brittany ot Bavaria.

You're just reasserting your claim with no further argument.

Do you think the UK had the right unilaterally to secede from the EU? It's certainly not proving to be a simple process. Would you argue that the EU should have a veto over the departure of any of its member states?

Ditto the UK. It is a political organisation (same as EU) consisting of two Kingdoms Scotland and England. It exists because we both signed an International Treaty in 1707. The Kingdom of England consists of several constituent countries, provinces and other dominions.

Partition of Scotland is not going to happen as it has been Scotland for a thousand years and there is no legal way for that to happen as we are an indivisible people.

On the UK leaving the EU, the EU isn’t a state it’s an organisation that we joined a few decades ago and are now leaving. There isn’t much of a parallel to a country there.

Why not? It's still complex for everyone involved. Why should the UK be allowed to do that unilaterally? We can't have everyone pulling out of international organisations whenever they feel like it. There'd be chaos! Where would it end?

Union2.0its perfectly valid to defend the union if you believe in it. It is NOT valid to defend the Union by ignoring democratic principles and starts falling back into colonial solutions to inconvenient democratic problems.

Democratically elected Parliament of Scotland has voted to hold a referendum on Independence. Claim of Right (agreed by Westminster) verifies the right of the Scottish people to decide on this matter. If you want the Union, argue for the Union, Campaign for the Union and then let the Scottish population decide if they agree with your arguments. I will do the same.

If Scotland declares independence it will include Orkney and Shetland. There is not a referendum for Shetland or Orkney to leave Scotland. If at a later date they decided they wanted independence from a newly independent Scotland then that should not be denied. However the referendum we are talking about is the whole of Scotland. Right now the Shetland argument is no more relevant than claiming Edinburgh or Inverness could stay in the UK if they voted differently from Glasgow or Dundee. It's a circular argument full of wholes.

I'm not sure you can argue that the Scottish government is trying to 'scupper' Brexit. It isn't arguing that the Brexit vote is illegitimate.

What it is arguing is that:a) Scotland (and/or all the UK) should stay in the single market and customs union (some Brexiteers also take this view)andb) the Brexit result gives justification for a 2nd independence referendum

Correct, Orkney and Shetland were once Norwegian but have never been part of England.When ceded to Scotland they were resettled by Scots farmers/fishermen. The last census showed more native Scots speakers than in the rest of Scotland at over 50%.They're rightly proud of links to Norway but are highly sceptical of the motives of those who raise this red herring when support for independence is on the rise.

Union 2.0July 5, 2018 at 3:37 PM"Because it’s not that simple, for any part of a state to secede from that state you need agreement by that state and/or the international community. See Catalonia. The same applies to England or Kosovo or Brittany ot Bavaria."

Oh for God's sake, not this canard again. You are comparing apples to moon rocks. Scotland is not in the same constitutional position as Catalonia, or Kosovo, or Brittany, or friggin' Bavaria. Even the Spanish Government recognised and acknowledged this.

There can be no secession for Scotland since there is no state from which Scotland can secede. Scotland and its people can only become independent by dissolving their union with England.

There can be no continuing state of an extinguished voluntary union of two nations. It is on its face a daft proposition. Consider the tautology:

When the Union is dissolved the Union ceases to be.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain is a legal and political entity formed by the Union of two and only two countries – the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England (incorporating Wales). It was created by a bilateral internationally recognised treaty.

It is the case that upon dissolution of the Treaty of Union, its associated enabling acts of parliaments, and any subsequent contingent intra-state treaties and agreements derived therefrom, the United Kingdom of Great Britain will cease to be.

As you might expect, two and only two successor states will emerge from its discarded husk – the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England.